Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Sufia Khatun And 7 Ors on 28 May, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010114322025
2025:GAU-AS:6889
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1686/2025
JAHANARA BEGUM
W/O LATE ABDUL ROUF, VILL. CHENGA, MUSOLMANPARA, P.O. CHENGA,
P.S. TARABARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781301 (PRESENT ADDRESS,
VILL. KUKARPAR, P.O. KHONGRA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA,
ASSAM, PIN CODE 781305
VERSUS
SUFIA KHATUN AND 7 ORS
W/O NOOR HUSSAIN, R/O VILL. KUKARPAR, P.O. KHONGRA, P.S.
SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781305
2:MALEK ALI
S/O AHMED ALI
3:SAHED ALI
S/O TONSER ALI
4:HALIM ALI
S/O TONSER ALI
5:MOTIUR RAHMAN
S/O OMAR ALI
6:MOKSHED ALI
S/O OMAR ALI
Page No.# 2/4
7:MUSLEM ALI
S/O OMAR ALI
8:SAMARUDDIN
S/O OMAR ALI
ALL ARE R/O VILL. KUKARPAR
P.O. KHONGRA
P.S. SARTHEBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781305
P.S. SARTHEBARI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 78130
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : None appears
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 28.05.2025
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
for condoning the delay of 1238 days in filing the review application
seeking review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated
30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted
that prior to the judgment and decree passed by this Court on
30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 12 in RSA
Page No.# 3/4
No. 46/2014 had expired and as such have filed the review application.
He submitted that the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated
30.11.2021 in RSA No. 46/2014 insofar as the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and
12 is a nullity and as such there cannot be any execution carried out
thereupon.
3. Taking into account the said submission, this Court enquired with
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that as the
learned Executing Court has the power to decide on all questions relating
to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree, why an
appropriate application has not been filed under Section 47 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") before the learned
Executing Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted
that he would file appropriate application before the learned Executing
Court.
5. As the applicant herein would be filing an application under Section
47 of the Code as submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant, nothing remains in the instant application, for which, the
instant application stands closed.
6. The closing of the instant application shall not effect the right of the
applicant to file appropriate application before the learned Executing
Court challenging the execution on the ground that the decree is a nullity.
If such application is filed, the learned Executing Court may duly consider
the same.
7. This Court makes it clear that the learned Executing Court may not
Page No.# 4/4
be influenced by any of the observations made herein above while
deciding the application under Section 47 of the Code, if so filed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
